Megacorp releases in 2 days. Make sure you spend some time with the new mechanics.

Also, I was thinking about rules. Since this is a FFA system, I want to create a system where we attempt to keep everyone in the game. I also want to create an environment where everyone is vying for something from start to finish. So this is my first attempt:

Rules:

War & Conquering:

You may not declare a separate war on an empire already at War. I'm iffy on this rule, but it may be required to keep the douche baggin to a minimum.

No nation may be forced to reduce their empire to fewer worlds than their Core Worlds.

A conquering player should, in good faith, leave LOS of owned territory between a defeated player's Core Worlds.

The worlds a defeated player keeps is their capital and the X closest systems (by direct hyperlane range) to that capital. X = number of Core Worlds.

A conquering empire may allow the defeated empire to keep any number of systems/worlds above the minimum requirements above. (this could be used to coffer support/loyalty out of a future vassal)

...note, I havent played with the Claims system to verify how this will work. It's on my to do list.

Vassals:

Vassals may only build a Starbase in their Core World systems. Their Master may give permission to build starbases in other systems, but that permission may be rescinded at any time.

A Vassal should, in good faith, support their Master in future wars.

A Master may order a Vassal's fleet "To Port!!", which requires that vassal to immediately send their fleets to a Starbase with docks/crew quarters.

Federations:

Members of a federation who decide to leave, must sign a NAP with all current members of the Federation at the time of leaving.

TBD

Victory and Points:

So I'm trying to think of a method of victory in a FFA, the best method I could come up with is a points system. Essentially, each player must declare points earned or lost during a session and those points will be added and posted immediately at the end of each session. Here are some ideas for points...

Winning an Independent War: +5 points

Winning a war as a Master: +3 points

Winning a war as a vassal: +2 points

Winning a war as a Federation: +2 points, plus 5 points divided among members (round up).

Losing a War: -2 points

Vassalizing an empire: +2 points

Being vassalized: -2 points

Being liberated: +3 points

Liberating an Empire: +1 Point, plus 3 points divided among involved faction members (round up). Points are awarded if this is accomplished diplomatically as well. This is not awarded to a Master who releases their vassal, this award is only for a nation who by force or diplomacy facilitates the liberation.

All war positive points awarded are reduced to +1 Point OR all negative points awarded are increased -1 Points...if you join the war after it initially starts (after initial +/-2% Warscore).

Each session, these points are tallied up and updated in the Game's main thread.

A note here, these points are mostly to encourage interaction between players, and save the megastructures points (to throw a bone to the forum's pacifists...looking at you Stu!!) the idea for the points system is to reward successfully imposing your will into the grand politique of the game. I dont think we should be looking to award points on "strategy" items, such as First to do X or Research Y, or colonize Z planets, etc etc.

Again, this is all work in progress...and h3ll, we may even want to do a simply ruleless game.

"A good plan, violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -Patton"...a bad plan, is always a bad plan." -aphro

These are good ideas. I'd argue the first one about war decs on player already at war probably aren't necessary if the rules to not take cores is in place, as dogpiling is less attractive if the late comer isn't going to get anything. Other than that i think the rest are good.

With apocalypse tall empires are better than wide ones anyway so I think these rules will keep a good balanced game.

You may not declare a separate war on an empire already at War. I'm iffy on this rule, but it may be required to keep the douche baggin to a minimum.

I don't know about this rule. This rule prevents coalition wars against a single or group of warmongers unless I am allied with or in a federation with the civilization being attacked. There are political factions in the game that demand that you not ally and not join a federation in order to keep them happy.

If most of my population is isolationist then that means I must hemorrhage influence points by pissing them off and joining defensive alliances. Otherwise this rule forces me to stand blithely aside as bellicose civilizations consolidate the galaxy. This rule would seem to encourage aggressive wars and to prolong those wars for as long as possible to prevent other players from attacking them.

No nation may be forced to reduce their empire to fewer worlds than their Core Worlds.

I am against this rule as it is worded. You can choose perks when designing your civilizations that boost your core worlds. You can acquire technology that boosts your core worlds. You can choose an ascension perk that boots your core worlds. All together you can have civilizations that have 12+ core worlds. This rule basically forces all civilizations to design their civs around maximizing core worlds to prevent your enemies from taking a single planet during a peace deal.

Instead consider rewording it as follows: No nation may be forced to reduce their empire to fewer worlds than 3 worlds.

This acheives the same effect as the original rule (keeping defeated players in game and giving them enough to remain relevant) without forcing every player to go down the same exact path of maximizing core worlds.

Variety of civilizations and Play styles

Part of the fun of Stellaris is you can play the game in a variety of ways depending on how you design your civilization. But in multiplayer there are certain civilization traits which give you much less bang for your buck against human players.

Charismatic Leader/Xenophile The main purpose is to make it easier for a player to have diplomatic relations with AI empires. Unfortunately, against human players, relations bonuses give you a big fat goose egg. Relationship bonuses have no impact at all in what sort of agreements you can enter into with human players.

I think the game would be more fun if players can roleplay as friendly xenophiles. When the galaxy is created I think it should be seeded with an adequate number of AI civilizations for Xenophiles to befriend.

Genocidal Purifiers These guys are the flip side of the coin. The game mechanics prevent you from having diplomatic agreements like non-aggression pact, research agreements, and vassalage. Your main goal is just to kill everyone. But you can't do that if you have to leave defeated players with 3 (or more) core worlds.

I think that Purifiers should be able to create player agreed upon vassalage arrangements with defeated players wherein the defeated player would agree to change their policies and governments to serve as an adjunct to the purifier until they are liberated from their slavery.

Example: if a Purifier completely defeats a Xenophile/Pacifist. Since the purifier cannot completely wipe out his enemy, the defeated vassal would have to change their policies/government so they could wage aggressive wars the Purifier's target.

If the purifier was defeated by another power they could sue for peace and as part of the peace agreement 'release' that human power from vassalage whereupon they would become an independent actor once again.

"Know that there are only three things that men respect: the lash that descends, the yoke that breaks and the sword that slays. By the power and terror of these you may conquer the earth." Richard Milhous Nixon in his first inaugural speech.

Good feedback, but the intent was not to force pre-war alliances, but to prevent mid-war douche bagging.

IE. Aphro' notices that Altaris has been chainsawing Harb for the past 3 years and is probably really weak. Looks like a good time to jump Altaris and take that juicy cluster of stars on our border!!!

So it's not to say you have to have that alliance to join the war, just saying you have to join the war pretty much at the outset or not at all. Like within a few months, or maybe even a year if there is some sitzkrieg initially. But once the fighting starts, my thought was to place arena walls around that war.

My thought was if we dont do this, then I'm afraid everyone will be too scared to go to war...for fear of being jump from behind. This also makes spawn location OP, as those who spawn at the edge of the galaxy, and thus have few "Fronts" to defend...will have an easier time being aggressive.

Also, just poking it last night before I went to bed, a couple of the rules arent even applicable. Let's keep playing and iterating!!

"A good plan, violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -Patton"...a bad plan, is always a bad plan." -aphro

I just think it's going to be difficult to put rules around that can't be gamed one way or the other. if there are hard rules then it can be gamed so as to put a weaker player at a disadvantage since they can't hunt around for allies.

Let's face it a big game of Stellaris pretty much guarantees you join a healthy alliance or federation, or get gobbled up/vassalized

I've never tried a genuine multiplayer game before. Does anyone want to do a smallish mp game to get some experience under their belt?

"Know that there are only three things that men respect: the lash that descends, the yoke that breaks and the sword that slays. By the power and terror of these you may conquer the earth." Richard Milhous Nixon in his first inaugural speech.

Also is there a tutorial on how to manage the new planet interface?! I cannot figure out the new system that has replaced the old tile system.

"Know that there are only three things that men respect: the lash that descends, the yoke that breaks and the sword that slays. By the power and terror of these you may conquer the earth." Richard Milhous Nixon in his first inaugural speech.